M USIC AND PERFORM ING ARTS PROFESSIONS
Program in Educational Theatre
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE
AND TIME TO COMPLETION
“The Steinhardt School of Education departments and programs use different methods for determining a
student’s eligibility for admission to degree candidacy, e.g., written tests, oral tests, research papers,
performances, other creative work, etc., alone or in combination ….All students are expected to take 18
credits after admission to degree candidacy even if this results in the student completing more credits than
initially required …” Steinhardt Handbook for Doctoral Study.
In order to achieve candidacy in educational theatre, students need to complete four projects: Educational
Theatre Portfolio, Research Framework, Arts Dialogue, Performance Review. These projects aim to more
holistic determination of students’ successful entry to candidacy and are more focused on the students’
research as it fits within an “educational theatre” model. The candidacy exam connects students to their
professional and scholarly networks, and, in this respect, aims to develop the next generation of leaders in
the field. Also, the exam ensures that students have achieved basic competence in the educational theatre
discipline. Please review the New York State Learning Standards for the Arts and the New York City
Department of Education Blueprint for Teaching and Learning in Theatre, Grades PreK – 12.
The Research Framework and the Arts Dialogue sections must be included in the portfolio and clearly
labeled.
Students must have identified a Mentor, and Student Support Group at the time of preparing for
candidacy, and they need to have been in regular communication with both before applying for
candidacy.
A mentor is someone students identify as agreeing to help shepherd them through the candidacy process,
and who may then go on to chair or sit as a member of the dissertation committee. Mentors have different
expectations so please ensure you have selected one who fits your work ethic. For instance, some mentors
require at least a two week lead time to review materials, maybe longer, which can impact on your
timeline to completion. Other mentors can have a quicker turnaround.
Please review the School mentoring document at the following link for the expectations of the mentee and
what students should be looking for in a mentor, http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/doctoral/funds/full-time.
A student support group is created by the candidate and consists of no more than three or four trusted
critical friends who will provide thorough and regular feedback on the students’ work before it is shared
with the mentor. These friends could be other doctoral students or even outside reviewers who you feel
can contribute to the quality of your study. We try to avoid having mentors read first drafts and being
copy editors. Many stylistic and content issues can be easily picked up by the student support group in
advance of faculty input. In qualitative research, it is expected that you will go through a process of peer
debriefing, so the sooner you have a student support group the better.
Students file for candidacy at the beginning of the semester they plan to submit their digital portfolio.
Joseph and Violet Pless Hall Annex | 82 Washington Square East, 2 nd Floor | New York, New York 10003
212 998 5868 | [email protected] | www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/edtheatre
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE
1. Educational Theatre Portfolio
A digital or online portfolio of students’ work that demonstrates competence around the New York State
Learning Standards for the Arts:




And:

Creating, performing and participating in theatre
Knowing and using theatre materials and resources
Responding to and analyzing works of theatre
Understanding cultural dimensions and contributions of theatre
Knowledge of how to apply theatreform to the students’ chosen research context
Portfolio might include combination of best papers, performance reviews, teaching citations, descriptions
of workshops led, creative products. If you feel weak in a particular area you should explain where the
gaps exist in your knowledge base and how you plan to improve your competency, perhaps by taking
further coursework. Faculty advises that you operate as a reflective practitioner, identifying your strengths
and those areas which you need to build. Please note, the portfolio will also include tasks 2 and 3 below.
For the Research Framework task, a paper that analyzes reviewers’ comments for an article submitted for
publication must be included, or an analysis regarding the selected publication, or a detailed discussion
about a creative product where an applied theatre project, or similar, is implemented (see Research
Framework below for further information). For the Arts Dialogue task, a paper reflecting on the student’s
written and oral presentation must be included (see Arts Dialogue below for further information).
The portfolio should be submitted as one rolling PDF file to the doctoral coordinator by the deadline
posted here:
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/doctoral/dates/candidacy
The portfolio must be introduced by a detailed statement that clearly articulates how it meets the criteria.
In the detailed statement (at least 10 pages) students address how their portfolio reveals competency in the
five criteria above. Headings are suggested and students refer to particular sections of the portfolio which
substantiate the claims which are being made. An annotated appendix is needed which articulates the
content of the portfolio. A Table of Contents needs to be included. A CV, reference and resource/reading
list must be provided in the portfolio.
Please do not pad the portfolio with an abundance of material. We recommend a “less is more” approach
where you selectively choose materials which most aptly demonstrate how you are demonstrating
competency. We don’t need 10 flyers which all show that you have acted or directed. Select and analyze
pertinent artifacts.
Criteria:
 Demonstrates competence across the five standards
 The statement clearly articulates how the student has achieved competency
 The portfolio is well referenced and there is an annotated appendix
2
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE
Portfolio Checklist:







Narrative that addresses (1) how you are meeting competency in the standards, (2) the ways
students operate as reflective practitioners, and (3) the skill level in Arts Based Research and
practice-led inquiry.
Artifacts that eloquently and succinctly reveal student has met competency
An annotated bibliography
An annotated appendix describing the items in the portfolio
Table of Contents
CV
Have you submitted the portfolio on line and at a secure site?
2. Research Framework
An article submitted for publication to a periodical in the field, preferably a peer reviewed journal, which
has reviewers' comments attached. A clear research framework or design informed by appropriate
literature needs to be included. Ideally, this article would be published. Students need to analyze the
reviewers’ comments and how they might incorporate them in their article. Possible publication outlets:
Youth Theatre Journal (AATE)
Stage of the Art (AATE)
Research in Drama Education (Carfax)
Drama Research (National Drama, UK)
The Drama Magazine (National Drama)
ArtsPraxis (http://education.nyu.edu/music/artspraxis/)
International Journal of Education and the Arts ( http://ijea.asu.edu/)
Alternatively, a paper that students feel is ready to be submitted to a particular publication with a
statement as to why they have selected that publication. A sustained argument as to how their paper
merits publication needs to be made, as well as a discussion on the areas in students’ ability that might
require further work.
An alternate creative product could be considered where the students devise and implement an applied
theatre project, or similar, with appropriate peer review and evaluation. Peer review would include faculty
mentors and leaders in the discipline. For instance, one doctoral student wrote an ethnotheatre dealing
with discrimination. It was presented in an educational theatre class, videotaped, and reviewers were
invited to attend and critique the presentation. The audience too provided invaluable feedback and
completed questionnaires. The student also sent the play to leading scholars in applied theatre and
ethnodrama, and solicited written feedback. Armed with comments from faculty, other reviewers, and a
student audience, the candidate wrote a written analysis of the research framework. This analysis, the
playscript, and the video were included in the portfolio and addressed the criteria below.
Criteria:
 The article, paper or creative product constitutes “research” in the field
 The research framework or design is clear and effectively argued
 Reviewers’ comments are attached with the student’s analysis
Research Framework Checklist:

An article, paper, or creative product prepared for peer review and/or publication
3
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE



Research framework or design is supported by literature and clearly articulated
Reviewers comments attached
Student analyzes the reviewers comments and demonstrates how the comments are being
included in the final article, paper, or creative product
3. Arts Dialogue
A written and oral presentation on the students' research to a selected scholarly community. This can be
presented “in house” or at an appropriate professional meeting, e.g, American Alliance for Theatre and
Education, International Drama in Education Research Institute, Research in Drama Education
Conference, the NYU Forum series. Program in Educational Theatre faculty needs to be present and/or
represented at this presentation, wherever possible. We recommend the dialogue occurs in a non-NYU
setting where candidates can clearly demonstrate that they are connecting to their professional and wider
scholarly networks outside NYU.
This presentation must be accompanied by an appropriate written paper which can be given to
participants, and which can be read by participants after the “dialogue”. This presentation might take
place in collegium, at a conference, or other professional setting. Ideally, the setting will provide
opportunities for feedback, dialogue or interaction from the audience participants. Paper must be
appropriately referenced with an extensive bibliography which reveals the literature that informs the
presentation
Students must write up the Arts Dialogue and include it in their portfolio. The paper should address what
the presentation was, where it took place, who attended, and how it meets the criteria below. If students
feel their Arts Dialogue was inadequate in some way they should clearly reflect on how it could be
improved.
Criteria:
 Student can discuss how the arts dialogue constitutes scholarly work at an appropriate
professional meeting.
 Students include the paper presented and includes the feedback that was given
 The dialogue demonstrates leadership (or evolving leadership) in the field
 A bibliography which shows how the research sits within the field’s literature
Arts Dialogue Checklist:





Complete a significant project that feeds into the student’s proposed dissertation topic
Prepare and include a written reflection paper for presentation at an appropriate professional
meeting
Review paper and presentation with the student support group at least two weeks prior to the
formal presentation and analyze written feedback
Present paper at an appropriate professional meeting in a dialogic format which allows input,
feedback, and/or discussion from/with colleagues in the field; must be attended by a member of
the Educational Theatre faculty or their representative
Write a summative reflection of the Arts Dialogue for inclusion in the portfolio addressing the
above criteria that incorporates feedback and discusses next steps
4
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE
4. Performance Review
After completion of the three tasks above, faculty in the Program in Educational Theatre meet with the
candidate and examine how the student has met candidacy and whether further work is required. In
instances where a deferred pass with conditions is given, students will be advised what specific tasks need
to be completed in order to achieve candidacy.
Criteria:
 Student has demonstrated satisfactory performance in the portfolio, research framework, and arts
dialogue
 Student recognizes areas of strength in performance as well as areas that require further work
 Student is able to complete other assignments if required
TIME TO COMPLETION
The expectation for full time students is that they would be taking a course load of at least 12 points per
semester. The degree course requirement, which is anywhere from 54-60 points depending on the
educational theatre skill base with which students enter, expects that students complete school wide as
well as program courses. There are school wide requirements (currently 36 points) in foundations study,
cognate, departmental seminar, specialized research methodology, dissertation proposal seminar, and
research electives. Check the handbook for descriptions of these requirements. These courses are
negotiated under faculty advisement. In recent times, the foundations requirement has been re-written to
enable students to locate their research within a particular theoretical tradition. As well, there are specific
program requirements which are crafted based on students’ area of research topic: students work within
one of three areas of concentrated study, drama education, applied theatre, play production for artist and
educators.
Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Theatre
Course
Foundations
Specialized Research Methodology
Cognates (course related to but not in specialization)
Departmental Content Seminar
Department Study
Dissertation Proposal Seminar
Specialization
* total depends on background & experience of student
Points/Credits
6 points
15 points
6 points
3 points
3 points
3 points
18-24 points*
54-60 points*
A full time student who is taking 54 points might reasonably be expected to complete all requirements for
their degree during the 10th semester (the end of their fifth year of full time study). Part time students will
have different timeline expectations and they should meet with their advisor to discuss them.
The following timetable could be illustrative of full time students’ program of study:
Semester 1
12 points of course work
5
PhD CANDIDACY EXAMINATION IN EDUCATIONAL THEATRE
Semester 2
12 points of course work
Semester 3
9 points of course work, 3 points full-time equivalency for work on candidacy
(complete full/half-time equivalency form)
Submit candidacy portfolio at the end of semester
Semester 4
Meet with faculty about candidacy
Do further work on candidacy if required
12 points of coursework
Semester 5
Present Topic Review at Doctoral Collegium
Note deadlines: If planning to present at October collegium, the outline needs to
be posted two weeks before, which means faculty need to have read and
responded to your topic review at least one month before the collegium
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/doctoral/dates/proposal
9 points of course work, 3 points full time equivalency for work on dissertation
topic
Semester 6
Form your dissertation committee.
Submit dissertation proposal, noting deadlines
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/music/doctoral/dates/proposal
File materials with the IRB
9 points of course work, 3 points of full time equivalency for work on
dissertation topic
Semester 7
Data Collection and Analysis
Full time equivalency
Semester 8
Data Collection and Analysis
Full time equivalency
Semester 9
Writing up and feedback from committee
Register for MPAIA-GE 3400 Performing Arts Research Collegium
Semester 10
Submission (submission in January, April, October)
6